The researchers of the present study have conducted a genre analysis of two political debates between American presidential nominees in the 2016 and 2020 elections. The current study seeks to analyze the cognitive construction of political debates to evaluate the typical moves and strategies politicians use to express their communicative intentions and to reveal the language manifestations of those moves and strategies. To achieve the study’s aims, the researchers adopt Bhatia’s (1993) framework of cognitive construction supported by van Emeren’s (2010) pragma-dialectic framework. The study demonstrates that both presidents adhere to this genre structuring to further their political agendas. For a positive and promising image, presidents focus on highlighting domestic and international issues to reflect leadership. On the other hand, highlighting controversies and defense strategies appear to be prominent in debate in consensus with the contemplative nature of this genre. Discoursal devices like polarized lexicalization and actor description are vital in orienting the controversies and influence with the aid of in-group pronouns, representative speech acts, and national/self-glorification.
